<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (6) TMI 710 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344439</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the pre-deposit made by the appellant as per the High Court&#039;s directions for admission of their writ petition. Citing previous decisions and specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that unjust enrichment did not apply in this scenario. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 710 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344439</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the pre-deposit made by the appellant as per the High Court&#039;s directions for admission of their writ petition. Citing previous decisions and specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that unjust enrichment did not apply in this scenario. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>